The point that you seem to fail to get, though is that there is no moral requirement for the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. There is ABSOLUTELY NO MORAL REQUIREMENT. There isn't even much of a religious one for that matter.

Totally agree. Many of the monarchs who have been Supreme Governor of the Church of England have been far from 'moral and upright' people - e.g. Charles II and his many mistresses, James I and VI who was probably a bit both ways, George IV and Edward VII all come to mind and amazingly they were all quite decent monarchs and Supreme Governors.

Quote:

In order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you have to be the king or queen of the United Kingdom. That's it. In order to be the the king or queen of the United Kingdom you have to be the senior most legitimate descendant of Sophia of Hanover and not a Catholic.

Totally true

Quote:

That means that in order to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England you don't have to be a moral, upstanding person. You don't even have to be an Anglican. You just have to have the right bloodline and not be a Catholic. Charles could convert to Islam tomorrow and would still be eligible to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England and Defender of the Faith.

NO to the bolded bit. You have to be a communicant member of the Anglican Church. This is spelt out in the Act of Settlement. Lutherans were regarded as being 'in communion' with the CoE so didn't need to change denominations but the monarch must be a communicant member of the CoE. If Charles converted to Islam he would lose his place immediately as he would no longer be in communion with the CoE - he could convert to a range of protestant denominations and even Orthodox but he does have to be a non-Roman Catholic Christian.

Quote:

As for this morallity of monarchs since Henry VIII... actually, yes things have progressed since then and Charles being divorced is actually a sign of that. First of all, Charles' reasons for divorce were actually considerably more founded than Henry's - Charles' marriage dissolved because he and his wife were not compatible and really didn't love each other so he and his wife separated. It wasn't done because his wife failed to produce a male heir, or because she had affairs (which she did). His one affair wasn't dismissed as completely acceptable while hers were a crime. Charles' divorce affected him and his wife, not the whole realm because he didn't have the authority (or need) to change everyone's religion just to get a divorce. He didn't need to make up a reason to divorce his wife, nor did he get to send his wife into exile, or prison, or execute her. He also didn't make it so that his wife could never be with anyone else.

Earlier wives committing the crime Diana committed in having affairs were executed or locked away. She was simply divorced. We have progressed.

Quote:

What's more is that we as a society largely don't believe that a couple should be condemned simply because they were married previously or because they were unable to make that first marriage work. It's hard to do when you consider that 50% of marriages end in divorce and in the Charles/Diana and Camilla/Andrew marriages everyone committed adultery.

Sadly though the Diana fans only see this situation through their rose coloured glasses when it comes to Diana and Charles and Camilla will have to be condemned for ever as a result.

One thing I have to believe is that should Charles' first marriage have taken place with them being an ordinary couple, they would have wasted no time in heading to divorce court. By the time things got really bad, they were both living separate lives in separate residences. It is at this point that both in the marriage are perhaps at their lowest and really need their close friends and family to support them.

Scandal wields a very black paintbrush and the portrait it paints never entirely goes away but we also have to remember that we're all outsiders looking in on the private lives of people being given very few insights from the actual people involved.

If people look at the here and now and how much happier of a person Charles has appeared to be since his marriage to Camilla, its not a far stretch of the imagination to realize that perhaps it was Camilla's close friendship, loyalty and support that enabled Charles to keep more on an even keel while all around him, things were falling apart. Slowly but surely by her actions and her interactions with the public, those that she meets come to believe that Camilla is a very warm, down to earth woman and there is much more to her than the public portrait that was painted of her many years ago.

__________________

__________________
I dream of a better tomorrow, where chickens can cross the road and not be questioned about their motives.

No one is talking about anyone needing to be condemned and just because 50 percent of marriages end in divorce doesn't mean it's ok. Just because one person commits adultery doesn't mean it's ok.

What is the point of the farce then...if one doesn't even has to be moral or even part of the CoE why bother to begin with. It doesn't mean anything and before long neither will the monarchy.

LaRae

Why is it not ok if people divorce? Even Muslims and Jews are allowed to divorce :), even Roman Catholiks are allowed to divorce. Why do you think YOUR interpretation of what Christian believe is, is the only valid one? I can't see in anything Christ ever said, that he was against divorce... In the 10 commentmens is no mentioning of not divorcing

Why is it, that so many people are so obsessed with what other people do in bed? Why should it be, that the sexlive of consenting adults should be more important than anything else they do in life?

If people decide to have an open marriage - it is there choice und I'm ok with that ... it is not a concerne of mine.

And afaik in the whole western world state and religion are seperate from each other! So beeing the head of state has nothing to do with 'christian morals' at all; You just have to play by the legal rules of your country. And adultery is NOT a crime - even if it goes against your religious believes.

It is time to move back on topic - this thread is about Camilla and the Public, not the moral or religious issues surrounding her husband's marriage, divorce or eligibility in becoming head of the Church of England. There are various other threads in which these things can be discussed.

I looked into this. This happened at the Cheltenham Literature Festival when the author A N Wilson was giving a talk.

NIcholas Witchall, BBc royal reporter (the one Prince Charles notably said he didnt like) took a 'straw poll'. This could have been either for fun or for mischief. But the outcome was that the majority said that she should be Queen.

BBC/Witchell did not get the result they prob wanted. Foolish for it to become news.

__________________

This precious stone set in the silver sea,......This blessed plot, this earth, this realm, this England,

The article did point out that it was just a 'straw poll' though, in fairness. Even though Camilla has improved since her marriage in more serious polling conducted by legitimate companies, there's still a broad section of Britons that don't care for her very much. She's still at the back of the pack when people are asked to rate their favourites in the royal family.

In answer to the follow on remarks, there is a lovely photograph of Charles and Diana both wearing very casual pale blue shirts, she's behind him, her arms round his shoulders and both looking probably every bit as happy as this.

It didn't work out and regardless of the endless speculation as to should it ever have happened makes no difference to the fact that yes they were that happy couple once.

I looked into this. This happened at the Cheltenham Literature Festival when the author A N Wilson was giving a talk.

NIcholas Witchall, BBc royal reporter (the one Prince Charles notably said he didnt like) took a 'straw poll'. This could have been either for fun or for mischief. But the outcome was that the majority said that she should be Queen.

BBC/Witchell did not get the result they prob wanted. Foolish for it to become news.

Thank you for looking into this, cepe. Interesting what they did. The result was that the majority said that she should be Queen. So they flipped it to 'nearly half' said no - which is not the majority so is accurate but creates the immediate opposing impression. Clear indication that the reporting in this is biased. Why are they so keen to stoke that fire?

Thank you for looking into this, cepe. Interesting what they did. The result was that the majority said that she should be Queen. So they flipped it to 'nearly half' said no - which is not the majority so is accurate but creates the immediate opposing impression. Clear indication that the reporting in this is biased. Why are they so keen to stoke that fire?

Why are reporters at the DM and other tabloids so keen to stoke that fire? IMO because it's clickbait and they know that Camilla isn't a favourite of the British public.

In every poll that has come out in the past ten years that has gone into the popularity of individual members of the royal family, some conducted by newspapers, others by reputable firms like YouGov, Camilla is at the back of the pack. Time after time the Queen and William, Kate and Harry are pronounced the favourites of the BRF by the public.

Yes, Charles has dragged his popularity up from the abysmal figures of the late 1990's and there has been a similar rise in Camilla's popularity. However, it is nothing to what you would suppose it should be for a hard working and committed heir to the throne and his wife.

For Camilla there will always be the shadow of Diana looking over her shoulder. People will say 'Well, people 30 years and younger don't remember Diana.' That's true, they don't. However, most young Britons also have mothers, fathers, aunts, grandmothers, who do remember and talk about her on occasions, the sort of thing that sticks in people's memories. That baggage of Camilla's interference in her second husband's first marriage will always be there IMO. Charles's spin doctors have tried to re-write history since the couple's marriage, and I believe they've failed.

If I'm wrong, why isn't Camilla up there near the Queen in terms of popularity as you would think her status and charity work since her marriage demands? Why is a committed heir to the throne with a huge portfolio of great work for the country behind him lagging in popularity behind his sons and daughter in law, as he once lagged in popularity behind his first wife?

People can dismiss polls but really in democracies they are the only thing we have to go on to get some idea of what the population of a country think. The result of one poll can be an abberation. One after another, after years of PR from Clarence House? Not a chance!

Imo the popularity of Camilla depends very much on whether a person views Camilla for her actions and representations since she became DoC or whether a person sees her as the woman who made Diana unhappy.

Diana's shadow is very long among some

Personally i get the feeling that Camilla isn't looking for the limelight at all and she wouldn't care if she never got in the position to possibly be the queen, but she also doesn't want to rock the boat and try to change tradition.

Why are reporters at the DM and other tabloids so keen to stoke that fire? IMO because it's clickbait and they know that Camilla isn't a favourite of the British public.

In every poll that has come out in the past ten years that has gone into the popularity of individual members of the royal family, some conducted by newspapers, others by reputable firms like YouGov, Camilla is at the back of the pack. Time after time the Queen and William, Kate and Harry are pronounced the favourites of the BRF by the public.

Yes, Charles has dragged his popularity up from the abysmal figures of the late 1990's and there has been a similar rise in Camilla's popularity. However, it is nothing to what you would suppose it should be for a hard working and committed heir to the throne and his wife.

For Camilla there will always be the shadow of Diana looking over her shoulder. People will say 'Well, people 30 years and younger don't remember Diana.' That's true, they don't. However, most young Britons also have mothers, fathers, aunts, grandmothers, who do remember and talk about her on occasions, the sort of thing that sticks in people's memories. That baggage of Camilla's interference in her second husband's first marriage will always be there IMO. Charles's spin doctors have tried to re-write history since the couple's marriage, and I believe they've failed.

If I'm wrong, why isn't Camilla up there near the Queen in terms of popularity as you would think her status and charity work since her marriage demands? Why is a committed heir to the throne with a huge portfolio of great work for the country behind him lagging in popularity behind his sons and daughter in law, as he once lagged in popularity behind his first wife?

People can dismiss polls but really in democracies they are the only thing we have to go on to get some idea of what the population of a country think. The result of one poll can be an abberation. One after another, after years of PR from Clarence House? Not a chance!

Camilla will never be on the same level of popularity as The Queen. That's just reality.

__________________"WE CANNOT PRAY IN LOVE AND LIVE IN HATE AND STILL THINK WE ARE WORSHIPING GOD."

Camilla will never be on the same level of popularity as The Queen. That's just reality.

JMO, but I think Camilla knows this and is not so sold, herself on the idea of being called Queen.
I think Camilla a very astute person, socially. And I mean that in a nice way, so no sniggering. She has been able to effect a change in the POW that I could not have imagined possible back in the 90s. She seems to get along with everyone from Phillip to Kate to Harry, for heaven's sake!
And I think the choices she has made in her married life say a lot about the terms under which she decided to take up the marriage.
She sometimes vacations with others, escapes to her own home to see her own family, does very little to seek the spotlight. She and the Prince seem to have a very mature (again - I mean that as a good thing, no sniggering) marriage where they are there for one another and enjoy one another but not to the exclusion of friends and family. She has made no move to dominate the royal court. Heck she was several years into her marriage before she started to let someone take care of her shoes; until then, she was regularly seen with scraped heel backs!
All that shows me a woman who is not grasping at the role of Queen. Excepting her penchant for wearing big hats at momentous day events and huge royal jewels to evening events, we rarely see her "looking regal." Indeed, she shows us a steady, supportive family member that loves to read books to the kiddies and stand a few feet back of her husband. That's when she's not gently getting him to dance or lift the odd pint at an appearance.
I'm not sure she wants to be "Queen" much less be the next to use that title, which will be a tough act. I think she knows that. I'm not at all sure that the choice has entirely to do with the public. JMO
And in full disclosure, I was a Camilla hater for a long time, until I started judging her by her actions today.

__________________
"And the tabloid press will be a pain in the ass, as usual." - Royal Norway